From: Justin M. Lewis (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-03 18:59:10
Ok, what the heck is the OP? What does that stand for? I assume it's me?
Sorry, I'm still new to this whole mailing list thing.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel Yap" <Noel.Yap_at_[hidden]>
To: "Boost mailing list" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: in/out parameters, codingstylesandmaintenance
> Gregory Colvin wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, May 3, 2003, at 17:13 America/Denver, Noel Yap wrote:
> >
> > > Noel Yap wrote:
> > >> std::auto_ptr< T > t( new T() );
> > >> f( boost::dumb_ptr< T >( t.get() ); // clearly an in/out parameter
> > >
> > > Or if you don't want to dynamically allocate t:
> > >
> > > T t;
> > > f( boost::dumb_ptr< T >( &t ) ); // clearly an in/out parameter
> > >
> > > static T t;
> > > f( boost::dumb_ptr< T >( &t ) ); // clearly an in/out parameter
> >
> > Not so clear -- it depends on whether f() cares about the initial
> > value of t.
>
> So you're saying the parameter can be an out-only parameter? If so, for
> out parameters, use:
>
> boost::dumb_ptr< T > f();
> t = f();
>
> IMHO, the intent is much more clear than:
>
> f( out< T > t );
> f( out< T >( t ) );
>
> > Also, not in my opinion any more clear than:
> >
> > f(&t);
>
> I agree, but the OP doesn't like raw pointers from what I've gathered
> from the thread.
>
> Noel
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://listarchives.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>